Yeah...Hak does a lot of good things as a coach, but the analytical process behind his decisions is baffling. The Athletic pointed out that AMac was given a 1st pairing role last year during a 9 game stretch where AMac-Provorov were +4 at 5v5 (despite a 39.6% Corsi for AMac during that time). AMac was then outscored at 5v5 by 31 to 18 for the rest of the season, but continued to receive top-pairing usage. Why?

To me, some of the day-to-day stuff is nbd (for example, I don't know why Leier didn't get a chance last year, but based on this year so far, he's probably an average-ish 4th liner, not a guy you'd want for your top-9, that's fine, probably not much gap between him and Lehtera), but it's the process behind the decisions that's a bit concerning.

I mean, considering that Ghost-Provy are destroying teams right now (Sunday's game aside), it's possible that the Flyers could have a legitimately good top-4 by the end of the season if they had given Gudas-Sanheim decent minutes and let Sanheim work through the kinks, but instead we're going to roll into next year with Sanheim still being a bit of a question mark as things stand.

There's also the part of this where winning today isn't Hak's only focus, and maybe not even his primary one. I still believe that MacDonald gets the minutes he does not because anyone thinks he's really a top 3 defenseman, but because a) he's like 31, and therefore not going to improve, so the teaching opportunities aren't there for him like they were for Ghost to get scratched last year, and b) within his skillset, he does everything he can to implement the things Hak wants him to do. Does MacDonald allow way too much controlled entry? Yes, but he doesn't have the skillset to be aggressive in the neutral zone. Meanwhile, within that skillset, he plays the way Hak wants him to play and coaches do and ought to reward that. Manning fits the same mold. Hak's job with respect to young players is to mold them into better players five years from now, and the only way to do that is to iron out the mistakes they make. I'm not here to cast opinions as to which one is better, but it's almost a certainty that Sanheim makes more mistakes that he is potentially able to correct than MacDonald does (i.e., Sanheim is capable of doing more to improve than MacDonald is), and that is the primary reason why Sanheim is lower in the coach's esteem.

Because Sanheim still has things to learn, and Manning is a finished product. Hak seems to believe you iron that stuff out in practice rather than fight through it in games (see Ghost's scratchings last year).

CantSeeColors wrote:Because Sanheim still has things to learn, and Manning is a finished product. Hak seems to believe you iron that stuff out in practice rather than fight through it in games (see Ghost's scratchings last year).

What is he going to learn in a January practice at this point? I'd be shocked if anybody in our top-9 is going full-speed at practice, the season is too grueling. Ghost's scratchings (while dumb in my opinion) were ostensibly so that he could watch a game or two from the pressbox and think about his defensive game. Contrastingly, Sanheim has played 1 game since Dec. 28 (and got 6 mins in it).

Sanheim got scratched because he's had bad puck luck (even though his underlying numbers are stellar). Our goalies have a .945 save percentage with Manning on the ice and a .900 save percentage with Sanheim out there, thus, Manning plays and Sanheim is in LV, even though on-ice save percentage isn't really a repeatable skill with skaters...

Was also mildly disconcerting to read the quotes from Sanheim to that Phantoms radio guy about how he's lost confidence and is too concerned about making mistakes and playing defensively...not exactly what you want to hear out of a guy that plays an offensively-oriented game...

Was also mildly disconcerting to read the quotes from Sanheim to that Phantoms radio guy about how he's lost confidence and is too concerned about making mistakes and playing defensively...not exactly what you want to hear out of a guy that plays an offensively-oriented game...

It's almost exactly the same complaint coming out of Buffalo during Bylsma's time here.

If it weren't for the top-line players playing out of their ever-loving minds, we'd be in the exact same situation.

Sanheim didn't get scratched because of puck luck, he got scratched because he (like every young defenseman) makes mistakes in his own zone and Hak (like almost every coach) wants sanheim to fix that before he gets more ice time. It's why hagg gets plenty of minutes (genuinely good in his own end despite flaws he needs to fix elsewhere), and it happens on almost every team

CantSeeColors wrote:Because Sanheim still has things to learn, and Manning is a finished product. Hak seems to believe you iron that stuff out in practice rather than fight through it in games (see Ghost's scratchings last year).

What is he going to learn in a January practice at this point? I'd be shocked if anybody in our top-9 is going full-speed at practice, the season is too grueling. Ghost's scratchings (while dumb in my opinion) were ostensibly so that he could watch a game or two from the pressbox and think about his defensive game. Contrastingly, Sanheim has played 1 game since Dec. 28 (and got 6 mins in it).

Sanheim got scratched because he's had bad puck luck (even though his underlying numbers are stellar). Our goalies have a .945 save percentage with Manning on the ice and a .900 save percentage with Sanheim out there, thus, Manning plays and Sanheim is in LV, even though on-ice save percentage isn't really a repeatable skill with skaters...

Was also mildly disconcerting to read the quotes from Sanheim to that Phantoms radio guy about how he's lost confidence and is too concerned about making mistakes and playing defensively...not exactly what you want to hear out of a guy that plays an offensively-oriented game...

On this front, perhaps worth remembering Ghost is 3 years older than Sanheim, and it was his second season in the NHL last year. Sanheim will be fine.

CantSeeColors wrote:Sanheim didn't get scratched because of puck luck, he got scratched because he (like every young defenseman) makes mistakes in his own zone and Hak (like almost every coach) wants sanheim to fix that before he gets more ice time. It's why hagg gets plenty of minutes (genuinely good in his own end despite flaws he needs to fix elsewhere), and it happens on almost every team

Literally all of Hagg’s predictive stats (Corsi, high-danger chances, xG%, etc.) are significantly worse than Sanheim’s. The difference, once again, is that Hagg’s PDO is literally 9 points higher than Sanheim’s.

The explanation is that Hagg is either a PDO god or that a pretty significant regression is coming. Hagg is getting minutes because he’s riding the percentages. Same thing happened with Ghost in 15/16 and we saw what happened when the percentages flipped.

Hagg and Manning make the "safe" simple plays that coaches like, and play a physical game. I agree that Sanheim should be a Flyer over those guys, but its not the end of the world for him to get big minutes in the AHL and come back later this year or for next season.

Completely agreed Hover, but what happens when we get to games we actually want to win (hell, making the playoffs this year would be nice) and AMac/Hagg are playing top-4 minutes while Sanheim rides the bench....the issue is the evaluation process.

As long as I'm kvetching, might as well also note that Laughton has the 5th highest ES points per/60 rate on the team (behind Couturier/Giroux/Voracek/Konecny), had the 4th highest rate in 15/16, and yet has never been given a chance with a legitimate top-6 player and is currently stapled to Lehtera and Goulbourne.

Dude has more ES points (total) than Filppula who gets significantly more ice-time and also plays with Voracek/Raffl. Oh, and Lehtera plays on the PP ahead of him. I enjoy that the Flyers have a guy who might actually be able to score at a top-6 rate and have decided, "no, you're a 4C and that's it."

Konecny wasn't even on PP2 until the last couple of games, even while on the top line. Some of Hak's choices like that just make no sense. Only possible rationale I could see for the Konecny/Laughton thing is trying to manage their minutes so they are fresh for ES(Konecny) PK/ES(Laughton).

Hovercraft wrote:Hagg and Manning make the "safe" simple plays that coaches like, and play a physical game. I agree that Sanheim should be a Flyer over those guys, but its not the end of the world for him to get big minutes in the AHL and come back later this year or for next season.

I wish they wouldnt of waited to send Sanheim down if Hakstol had no intention of playing him over Manning. if you arent going to play him send him down. Alt should of been the 7th all along if this is Hakstol's plan.we should of had to wait 7 straight healthy scratches to get Sanheim sent down. it was poor communication between Hextall and Hakstol

FlyHigh wrote:Completely agreed Hover, but what happens when we get to games we actually want to win (hell, making the playoffs this year would be nice) and AMac/Hagg are playing top-4 minutes while Sanheim rides the bench....the issue is the evaluation process.

While your concern is warranted, I know I've read somewhere about how it's a delicate game when a GM gets involved in coaching. Hextall I'm pretty sure is trying to be hands off. Frankly, and I've said this multiple times this season, I still believe Hextall isn't in win now mode. If we make the playoffs that's a bonus, and maybe he will be more involved, but until then, he's hands off to let the team grow. Also, Hakstol is a new coach too so now is the time to let Hakstol make mistakes and learn from them. Next year is when I think Hextall really starts pushing and at that point Manning will be gone.

FlyHigh wrote:Completely agreed Hover, but what happens when we get to games we actually want to win (hell, making the playoffs this year would be nice) and AMac/Hagg are playing top-4 minutes while Sanheim rides the bench....the issue is the evaluation process.

The world will end?

Look, there was a lot of bitching about the handling of Ghost last year ... and then he signed an extension, and played a much better all around game this year. Magical all of that. Sanheim, much like Ghost, has a lot more talent and a brighter future than AMac for sure and hopefully Hagg. The underlying evaluation process question that you are ignoring--just as was the case with all the griping about Ghost's "treatment" last year--is "how do we make Sanheim the best player he can be age 25?" Now, you may disagree with the choice ... you may disagree with the *coaching* ... but as of right now I find a lot of the bitching about Hakstol (who I'm agnostic about) to be pretty premature.

He's had a pretty poor hand to play during his tenure with a disjointed roster, and needing to break in a lot of young players. It's hard to win in this league given those problems. Yet, at the same time we have a very young D who looks like he's going to be an absolute stud in Provorov, another young D that is offensively dynamic and increasingly reliable defensively in Ghost, a rookie D in Hagg that is playing passingly well and hopefully will improve ...

Yet the point of contention is ANOTHER rookie D who hasn't fully grabbed hold of a roster spot. A rookie D whose primary asset right now is offense ... and he has 5 points in 35 games. I like Sanheim, and I think he's going to force the coaches hands in due time and be a good player. But scoreboards don't give a flying fuck about underlying statistics, and I say that as someone that has been looking at advanced metrics for quite some time.

FlyHigh wrote:As long as I'm kvetching, might as well also note that Laughton has the 5th highest ES points per/60 rate on the team (behind Couturier/Giroux/Voracek/Konecny), had the 4th highest rate in 15/16, and yet has never been given a chance with a legitimate top-6 player and is currently stapled to Lehtera and Goulbourne.

Dude has more ES points (total) than Filppula who gets significantly more ice-time and also plays with Voracek/Raffl. Oh, and Lehtera plays on the PP ahead of him. I enjoy that the Flyers have a guy who might actually be able to score at a top-6 rate and have decided, "no, you're a 4C and that's it."

Again, someone just explain the rationale there...

Food for thought: perhaps success stems from limited usage, and more increased usage will expose that.

This team is in close running for the no. 2 spot in a very, very tough division, and despite a roster that is pretty meh in a number of areas. Moreover, if I told you prior to the year that our PK would be in the gutter ... you probably would not have pegged us to be as competitive as we are. A key to that development was a pretty damn ballsy coaching decision in moving the captain away from center and elevating a very unproven offensive center into the no. 1 slot. He then pushed Konecny--who had not been producing at a high level--on to the top line, and that has worked out wonderfully.

Patience. This team is not where it will be a year from now, or, more importantly, two years from now. It's growing.

FlyHigh wrote:Completely agreed Hover, but what happens when we get to games we actually want to win (hell, making the playoffs this year would be nice) and AMac/Hagg are playing top-4 minutes while Sanheim rides the bench....the issue is the evaluation process.

The world will end?

Look, there was a lot of bitching about the handling of Ghost last year ... and then he signed an extension, and played a much better all around game this year. Magical all of that. Sanheim, much like Ghost, has a lot more talent and a brighter future than AMac for sure and hopefully Hagg. The underlying evaluation process question that you are ignoring--just as was the case with all the griping about Ghost's "treatment" last year--is "how do we make Sanheim the best player he can be age 25?" Now, you may disagree with the choice ... you may disagree with the *coaching* ... but as of right now I find a lot of the bitching about Hakstol (who I'm agnostic about) to be pretty premature.

He's had a pretty poor hand to play during his tenure with a disjointed roster, and needing to break in a lot of young players. It's hard to win in this league given those problems. Yet, at the same time we have a very young D who looks like he's going to be an absolute stud in Provorov, another young D that is offensively dynamic and increasingly reliable defensively in Ghost, a rookie D in Hagg that is playing passingly well and hopefully will improve ...

Yet the point of contention is ANOTHER rookie D who hasn't fully grabbed hold of a roster spot. A rookie D whose primary asset right now is offense ... and he has 5 points in 35 games. I like Sanheim, and I think he's going to force the coaches hands in due time and be a good player. But scoreboards don't give a flying fuck about underlying statistics, and I say that as someone that has been looking at advanced metrics for quite some time.

Patience.

If you don’t understand why this sentence is silly, there’s no real point in having this conversation.

I look forward to the inevitable Hagg “sophomore slump” narrative next year when his bottom-line numbers begin to regress.

Also worth noting that the Flyers ES goaltending is 4th in the league right now, they have 3 of the top-20 forwards in the league by game score, they have 3 d-men who are legitimately top-4 level historically (and Provorov might be a No.1 already considering the way he’s destroyed teams when not paired with a replacement level player) and their forward depth is at least above average (Raffl/Konecny/Simmonds/Weal/Laughton all score at respectable middle-six rates and Patrick has been strong recently).

Take a gander around the league, pretty much every team has significant flaws. Considering the goaltending they’ve received, there is a pretty decent argument the Flyers have underachieved so far.

FlyHigh wrote:If you don’t understand why this sentence is silly, there’s no real point in having this conversation.

I look forward to the inevitable Hagg “sophomore slump” narrative next year when his bottom-line numbers begin to regress.

Also worth noting that the Flyers ES goaltending is 4th in the league right now, they have 3 of the top-20 forwards in the league by game score, they have 3 d-men who are legitimately top-4 level historically (and Provorov might be a No.1 already considering the way he’s destroyed teams when not paired with a replacement level player) and their forward depth is at least above average (Raffl/Konecny/Simmonds/Weal/Laughton all score at respectable middle-six rates and Patrick has been strong recently).

Take a gander around the league, pretty much every team has significant flaws. Considering the goaltending they’ve received, there is a pretty decent argument the Flyers have underachieved so far.

If you don't understand that no coach has ever retained his job because Corsi says he's doing the right thing ... then you need to look a little harder at human psychology.

ES goaltending is worth fuck all if you're giving that away on the PK, FlyHigh. We are 19th in SVPCT, and ... low and behold ... that's about where we sit in the league standings.

And you won't be hearing that narrative about Hagg from me ... but Sanheim not playing is not some tragedy, and Hak not perfectly following the analytics is not something to get all up in arms about. Particularly given that outside of a 10 game run, this team has played pretty damn well all things considered.

FlyHigh wrote:If you don’t understand why this sentence is silly, there’s no real point in having this conversation.

I look forward to the inevitable Hagg “sophomore slump” narrative next year when his bottom-line numbers begin to regress.

Also worth noting that the Flyers ES goaltending is 4th in the league right now, they have 3 of the top-20 forwards in the league by game score, they have 3 d-men who are legitimately top-4 level historically (and Provorov might be a No.1 already considering the way he’s destroyed teams when not paired with a replacement level player) and their forward depth is at least above average (Raffl/Konecny/Simmonds/Weal/Laughton all score at respectable middle-six rates and Patrick has been strong recently).

Take a gander around the league, pretty much every team has significant flaws. Considering the goaltending they’ve received, there is a pretty decent argument the Flyers have underachieved so far.

If you don't understand that no coach has ever retained his job because Corsi says he's doing the right thing ... then you need to look a little harder at human psychology.

ES goaltending is worth fuck all if you're giving that away on the PK, FlyHigh. We are 19th in SVPCT, and ... low and behold ... that's about where we sit in the league standings.

And you won't be hearing that narrative about Hagg from me ... but Sanheim not playing is not some tragedy, and Hak not perfectly following the analytics is not something to get all up in arms about. Particularly given that outside of a 10 game run, this team has played pretty damn well all things considered.

First para, ironically your and CSC’s arguments run against each other here. CSC = maybe Hak isn’t worried about winning now and that’s why he’s benching Sanheim. Jester = Hak can’t worry about Corsi/stats because he has to win now. The point in any case is that Sanheim is much more likely than Hagg/AMac/Manning to drive positive results both now and in the future. Regression is coming, like it or not. Heck yeah Sanheim makes rookie mistakes. I also just watched a game where Manning/Gudas repeatedly abandoned net-front coverage and Ghost got undressed by Ryan Callahan. I’m not sure how Sanheim is supposed to fix NHL rookie mistakes by playing in a lower-level league he dominated last year.

Second para, the PK has been a running problem for 3+ years despite numerous changes in personnel and a major change in goaltending. At some point it’s not about the players anymore. Elliott is historically a solid PK goaltender and has cratered since he got here.

Third para, sure, throw out 10 losses for every team and their record looks a lot better. I don’t think that’s a particularly insightful observation. The Flyers lost games in that streak they should have won and have won games as part of this recent run that they should have lost.

FlyHigh wrote:First para, ironically your and CSC’s arguments run against each other here. CSC = maybe Hak isn’t worried about winning now and that’s why he’s benching Sanheim. Jester = Hak can’t worry about Corsi/stats because he has to win now. The point in any case is that Sanheim is much more likely than Hagg/AMac/Manning to drive positive results both now and in the future. Regression is coming, like it or not. Heck yeah Sanheim makes rookie mistakes. I also just watched a game where Manning/Gudas repeatedly abandoned net-front coverage and Ghost got undressed by Ryan Callahan. I’m not sure how Sanheim is supposed to fix NHL rookie mistakes by playing in a lower-level league he dominated last year.

Not sure they run that far against one another ... this is a rebuilding team. The fact that it is a rebuilding team is more important from the GM's chair, but it is not irrelevant to the coach's seat.

The point, in any case, is that Sanheim was producing shit. There is no doubt his underlying statistics were better than the shit, but no matter how much perfume you put on shit ... it's still shit. He will get his chance. He will very likely get his chance again in the not too distant future. But ... if he's producing at 12 point/-20 pace ... he's probably not going to earn a larger role, no matter what his Corsi/stats suggest his real value is.

I love advanced stats, they tell you a lot more about what is going on out there. But you cannot lose sight of the scoreboard.

And, yeah, tonight wasn't great ... but, it was against the best team in the conference ... and it meant we dropped to 4-1 in the last 5, and 8-2 in the last 10. Pardon me if I'm not calling for the pitchforks.

Second para, the PK has been a running problem for 3+ years despite numerous changes in personnel and a major change in goaltending. At some point it’s not about the players anymore. Elliott is historically a solid PK goaltender and has cratered since he got here.

We also have had a strong PK under Lappy ... but, to be clear, I still think it odd that he retained his job and the guy with a stellar PP track record got the can ...

But, to the point, the ES SVPCT is a pretty worthless stat in a vacuum.

Third para, sure, throw out 10 losses for every team and their record looks a lot better. I don’t think that’s a particularly insightful observation. The Flyers lost games in that streak they should have won and have won games as part of this recent run that they should have lost.

It's not "10 losses" FlyHigh, it's a 10 game run of shit luck and shit decision making. They blew multiple 2-goal leads in that stretch, and couldn't buy an OT/SO win. They very easily could have come out of that 10 game stretch with a 3-5-2 record, but they didn't. That was a young team stretch. It happens, particularly when you're rebuilding.

All coaches make certain lineup decisions that the fan base hates. Hak is not unique in that regard. Arguing about it is futile. The team is playing above expectations and has a good shot at a playoff spot.

Point overall is that Sanheim is not exactly unique among D on our team that make d-zone mistakes on a fairly consistent basis. If you are really using +/- over a 35-game sample size (where the guy was playing 15 mins a night) to justify your argument and ignoring every other stat in the hockey world that indicates that things are going to flip for him, go right ahead. I think that's shortsighted/foolhardy in the extreme, but reasonable minds can disagree.

Re: PK, Flyers had a good PK Laperriere's 1st year and has been bottom third since including 29th this year or whatever they're at. I'm not sure what your argument is here. Our ES SVPCT (primarily a player-driven stat) is outstanding, our PK (special teams are where coaches have the most influence) sucks this year and has consistently been below-average under Hakstol...at some point that's on him and his staff.

Re: 10 games, what is your point? Every team experiences good luck and bad luck over a season. The Flames made the playoffs a few years ago based on a season-long run of good luck. Just based on what I remember from watching, the Flyers probably shouldn't have won either the Detroit or the Washington games, should we throw those out too? It's not exactly shocking that bad luck can come in runs.

FlyHigh wrote:Point overall is that Sanheim is not exactly unique among D on our team that make d-zone mistakes on a fairly consistent basis. If you are really using +/- over a 35-game sample size (where the guy was playing 15 mins a night) to justify your argument and ignoring every other stat in the hockey world that indicates that things are going to flip for him, go right ahead. I think that's shortsighted/foolhardy in the extreme, but reasonable minds can disagree.

My "argument" is: chill out, Sanheim will be fine and likely have a nice NHL career, and nothing happening right now will change that. The team has been winning, and that, more than anything, makes it hard for him to get back into the lineup.

Re: PK, Flyers had a good PK Laperriere's 1st year and has been bottom third since including 29th this year or whatever they're at. I'm not sure what your argument is here. Our ES SVPCT (primarily a player-driven stat) is outstanding, our PK (special teams are where coaches have the most influence) sucks this year and has consistently been below-average under Hakstol...at some point that's on him and his staff.

Coaches have plenty of influence on ES stats, too.

Re: 10 games, what is your point? Every team experiences good luck and bad luck over a season. The Flames made the playoffs a few years ago based on a season-long run of good luck. Just based on what I remember from watching, the Flyers probably shouldn't have won either the Detroit or the Washington games, should we throw those out too? It's not exactly shocking that bad luck can come in runs.

Blowing 2 goal leads repeatedly is relatively rare. But, this is about narrative. Nevertheless, even with that run of futility we are a playoff team as of today.

Hovercraft wrote:All coaches make certain lineup decisions that the fan base hates. Hak is not unique in that regard. Arguing about it is futile. The team is playing above expectations and has a good shot at a playoff spot.

Exactly. And all the advanced stats in the world won't save a player if he isn't producing real results, and, similarly, a guy over performing his advanced stats is not going to lose ice time. I also think Hagg looks like a guy that will, similar to Grossman, end up a bit more effective than his advanced metrics. He makes safe plays, and is very effective in his physical play.

Nobody's freaking out, the point is that the lineup decisions are sub-optimal (and have consistently been sub-optimal), which is annoying. Considering the way Provy-Ghost are destroying teams, if we can put together any kind of viable 2nd pairing, this team could actually be mildly intriguing if the goaltending holds up. The tools for a viable 2nd pairing appear to be there if they let Sanheim work through the kinks, but they've decided to put him in the AHL instead.

Considering that the East is kind of a shitshow (outside of TB/Bos, is anybody actually good right now?), that's less than ideal.

Also probably worth noting that for his career, Grossman finished with negative on-ice goal differential compared to his teammates, so I'd hope Hagg is a bit more effective.

FlyHigh wrote:Nobody's freaking out, the point is that the lineup decisions are sub-optimal (and have consistently been sub-optimal), which is annoying. Considering the way Provy-Ghost are destroying teams, if we can put together any kind of viable 2nd pairing, this team could actually be mildly intriguing if the goaltending holds up. The tools for a viable 2nd pairing appear to be there if they let Sanheim work through the kinks, but they've decided to put him in the AHL instead.

Considering that the East is kind of a shitshow (outside of TB/Bos, is anybody actually good right now?), that's less than ideal.

Also probably worth noting that for his career, Grossman finished with negative on-ice goal differential compared to his teammates, so I'd hope Hagg is a bit more effective.

I hope Hagg is better, too. But the thing with Grossman was that he suppressed scoring very well during his prime. So, sure, he didn't create offense ... but he also didn't allow offense. Situationally, there is tremendous value in low event hockey.

And, look, the arguments you are trotting out are the same as what BSH collectively bitches about constantly. At some point, it is what it is and we need to recognize that it isn't the end of the world and the team has been performing reasonably well.

Out of curiosity, outside of arguably the last 5 minutes of a game in which you have a one-goal lead, where is the "tremendous value" in low event hockey? If I am starting an OT period and I have a choice between (A) a guy that's on-ice for 10 GF and 9 GA per 60 minutes or (B) a guy that's on ice for 1 GF and 2 GA per 60 minutes, I'm taking (A) every time. I can see the argument that having a low-event guy that still drives positive outcomes is extremely worthwhile. But Grossmann, over his career as a whole, was a worse player by goal differential than his teammates (and it's not like the Stars or the Flyers were Cup contenders for the most part). At some point, that's the story.

It's still (very) early days, so I don't think we can read too much into it as of yet, but I remember there being a ton of skepticism on this board and in other spots about pairing Ghost with Provorov because Ghost is a high-event player that's iffy defensively and the theory was that he'd be a sieve. Again, still early days, but so far, that line of thinking has been noticeably incorrect.

Ultimately, nothing related to hockey is the "end of the world." Hak is still at the "meh" stage for me. Some decisions (such as the Giroux move alluded to earlier) have been really good. Other decisions, not so much. The concerns are the same last year, namely, the determination of playing time based on puck luck, different standards for different guys (primarily driven by how much time they've spent in the league), and the fact that the PK and 2nd PP unit have been bottom-tier since he got here (despite changing personnel).

FlyHigh wrote:Out of curiosity, outside of arguably the last 5 minutes of a game in which you have a one-goal lead, where is the "tremendous value" in low event hockey? If I am starting an OT period and I have a choice between (A) a guy that's on-ice for 10 GF and 9 GA per 60 minutes or (B) a guy that's on ice for 1 GF and 2 GA per 60 minutes, I'm taking (A) every time. I can see the argument that having a low-event guy that still drives positive outcomes is extremely worthwhile. But Grossmann, over his career as a whole, was a worse player by goal differential than his teammates (and it's not like the Stars or the Flyers were Cup contenders for the most part). At some point, that's the story.

I like how you jump to OT ... a situation in which you have a point in the bag, and are playing for only one point.

Grossman was what he was ... a true defensive defenseman. But, unlike most defensive defenseman, it was not simply a comment on his limited offense and skating. He was, in fact, *very good* at playing defense. The opponent didn't score goals. If you don't see value in that, I don't know what to tell you. Now, ideally that's a third pairing guy ... particularly given that a lot of third pairing guys are volatile and streaky.

But, again, Hagg should be a better skill guy than Grossman ... but he does seem to have the knack for closing guys off and playing physical effectively. Let's not poo poo that.

I think you are ducking the question. The point of hockey isn't to prevent goals, it's to score more goals than the other team. Please tell me the situations where a guy, who is worse from a goals-perspective than his teammates, has "tremendous value" just because he's good in his own zone. I mean, AMac falls into that category as well. Is the argument that AMac also provides "tremendous value" to the Flyers?

Again, go back to the hypo. Would you rather have a guy good for 1 GF and 2 GA or 10 GF and 9 GA? Grossmann was a worse player from a goals perspective than his teammates. That is the story. We can hope that Hagg turns into more than that, but let's not act like Grossmann is a standard that should be aspired to.

FlyHigh wrote:I think you are ducking the question. The point of hockey isn't to prevent goals, it's to score more goals than the other team. Please tell me the situations where a guy, who is worse from a goals-perspective than his teammates, has "tremendous value" just because he's good in his own zone. I mean, AMac falls into that category as well. Is the argument that AMac also provides "tremendous value" to the Flyers?

Again, go back to the hypo. Would you rather have a guy good for 1 GF and 2 GA or 10 GF and 9 GA? Grossmann was a worse player from a goals perspective than his teammates. That is the story. We can hope that Hagg turns into more than that, but let's not act like Grossmann is a standard that should be aspired to.

Why do we have to go back to this? The stats show that Hagg, as a rookie all of 22ish years old, already suppresses offense from the other team (his poor corsi, etc. comes from low shots for totals). As time goes, one would expect the coaches to let him open up a bit (this is actually happening now that he's playing with MacDonald) and hopefully bump up the offense. As I've been saying, these decisions are about who the young guys can be 3-5 years from now, not who they are. What if Hagg becomes a 4 GF, 2 GA guy? This is pretty clearly what they're pushing for.

Oh for sure. As often happens (to me at least) in convos/debates with jester, a throwaway comment turned into its own debate.

Even to this point, Hagg has showed a lot more of a rounded game than Grossman ever did. Think Sanheim has been significantly more impressive than Hagg overall and just hasn’t had Hagg’s luck, but Hagg is still a young guy and appears to have enough of a skillset to develop into a pretty decent NHL dman.

FlyHigh wrote:I think you are ducking the question. The point of hockey isn't to prevent goals, it's to score more goals than the other team. Please tell me the situations where a guy, who is worse from a goals-perspective than his teammates, has "tremendous value" just because he's good in his own zone. I mean, AMac falls into that category as well. Is the argument that AMac also provides "tremendous value" to the Flyers?

Again, go back to the hypo. Would you rather have a guy good for 1 GF and 2 GA or 10 GF and 9 GA? Grossmann was a worse player from a goals perspective than his teammates. That is the story. We can hope that Hagg turns into more than that, but let's not act like Grossmann is a standard that should be aspired to.

If I am playing a highly efficient offensive team, and I have a less efficient offensive team ... is the correct strategy to play a high event "score more goals than the other team" strategy? Or is it to try and slow the game down, play low event hockey, and go from there?

Shit, you're about to see the equivalent strategy deployed in the Super Bowl.

Obviously, you want to most efficient offensive team you can have, and you want to be more dangerous than your opposition ... but the reality is that the vast majority of the time there are going to be better, more dangerous teams out there for you to compete with. And your fire isn't hot enough to fight their fire. So you need a bit of a wet blanket every once in awhile.

Grossman is not the standard, largely because, as said, he's something of an albatross. Most "defensive defensemen" are BS. They are defined as such because they do not score, NOT because they actually suppress scoring. This, IMO, is one of the biggest flaws with the analysis that tends to come out of the advanced metrics. It is biased towards offense, largely because of the supposition you began with there: "The point of hockey isn't to prevent goals, it's to score more goals than the other team." The point of playing hockey, like all sports, is to win games ... and, like most things in life, there are multiple ways to skin a cat. Ultimately, you need to outscore the opponent over 60+ minutes, but sometimes it helps if you can simply hold serve for 20 of those minutes.

If AMac had Grossman's more modest contract and was getting used as a 2nd/3rd pairing guy ... there would be a lot less bitching about him.

FlyHigh wrote:I think you are ducking the question. The point of hockey isn't to prevent goals, it's to score more goals than the other team. Please tell me the situations where a guy, who is worse from a goals-perspective than his teammates, has "tremendous value" just because he's good in his own zone. I mean, AMac falls into that category as well. Is the argument that AMac also provides "tremendous value" to the Flyers?

Again, go back to the hypo. Would you rather have a guy good for 1 GF and 2 GA or 10 GF and 9 GA? Grossmann was a worse player from a goals perspective than his teammates. That is the story. We can hope that Hagg turns into more than that, but let's not act like Grossmann is a standard that should be aspired to.

Why do we have to go back to this? The stats show that Hagg, as a rookie all of 22ish years old, already suppresses offense from the other team (his poor corsi, etc. comes from low shots for totals). As time goes, one would expect the coaches to let him open up a bit (this is actually happening now that he's playing with MacDonald) and hopefully bump up the offense. As I've been saying, these decisions are about who the young guys can be 3-5 years from now, not who they are. What if Hagg becomes a 4 GF, 2 GA guy? This is pretty clearly what they're pushing for.

Indeed, Hagg is in the lineup at Sanheim's expense almost entirely due to his reliability ... which makes sense, he has more seasoning than Sanheim, along with likely a higher floor but lower ceiling. Of course, the concern with him is that he apparently has not shown much interest/comfort with pushing play. So, we will see how he develops.